United States v. Marino
| Decision Date | 24 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket 32291.,No. 531,531 |
| Citation | 396 F.2d 780 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard C. MARINO, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Herman D. Silberberg, Ansonia, Conn., for appellant.
John Cassidento, Asst. U. S. Atty., Hartford, Conn. (Jon O. Newman, U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and HAYS, Circuit Judges.
Richard C. Marino was convicted on trial to the Court, jury waived, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, T. Emmet Clarie, Judge, of transportation of more than $5,000 worth of stolen goods in interstate commerce and of conspiracy so to transport in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 371 and he appeals. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
The sole issue presented on the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence that the amount of the stolen goods transported interstate equalled or exceeded $5,000.
The evidence justified a finding that Marino, a Connecticut coin dealer, arranged for two men to hold up a Vermont coin dealer at his home, and that they did so and escaped with $8,300 worth of coins and other articles, including an ingot of silver, tying up the Vermont dealer, his wife and Marino, present in the guise of a customer. Some 17 days later Marino in Connecticut delivered some $800 in coins and the ingot to one Raccio for sale, for a down payment of $100 and a share in the proceeds over $100 in order to obtain money to pay off the two robbers. Raccio later informed authorities and returned the articles to Marino, in whose house in Connecticut they were found on Marino's arrest. Marino lied about his acquisition of the coins and reason for hiding the ingot. He informed Raccio prior to trial that the identifiable paper money taken in Vermont was gone and everything else was gone.
It was a reasonable inference from all the circumstances that all the articles stolen, as well as those specifically identified in Marino's possession in Connecticut, were agreed to be and were transported in interstate commerce. Cf. United States v. Messina, 388 F.2d 393 (2 Cir. 1968). Marino told Raccio that the two robbers knew nothing about coins. There is no evidence which supports an inference that any part of the loot remained in Vermont. It is quite plain that Marino was the manager of the enterprise, that he was to pay off the two robbers in ordinary cash, and that he was the one of the three with enough...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Sperling
...U.S. 928 (1970); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1083 (2 Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1021 (1970); United States v. Marino, 396 F.2d 780, 781 (2 Cir. 1968); United States v. Agueci, supra, 310 F.2d at 828. Since Del Busto and Garcia received concurrent sentences on the two c......
-
United States ex rel. Weems v. Follette
...the rule as "familiar." United States v. Youngblood, 379 F.2d 365, 367 (2d Cir. 1967); see, e. g., United States v. Marino, 396 F.2d 780 (2d Cir. 1968) (per curiam); United States v. Scandifia, 390 F.2d 244, 250 (2d Cir. 1968). It is true that on rare occasion we have set aside a conviction......
-
United States v. Roberts
...there was a valid conviction on either count. Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958); United States v. Marino, 396 F.2d 780 (2 Cir. 1968). See, however, Benton v. Maryland, 393 U.S. 994, 89 S.Ct. 481, 21 L.Ed.2d 460, reargument calendared March 24, In any ca......
-
United States v. Proner
...the conviction on the other counts. Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 359, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958);3 United States v. Marino, 396 F.2d 780, 781 (2d Cir. 1968). During his summation defense counsel indicated that the prosecutor had remained silent even though he knew his witnes......